|
grib
Registered: 03/01/03
Posts: 550
Loc: Here and there
Last seen: 9 years, 9 months
|
Why didn't Saddam...
#1449493 - 04/11/03 11:33 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Why didn't Saddam use his chemical/bio weapons? He had nothing to loose.
(and thank God he didn't)
-------------------- <~>Our truest life is when we are in dreams awake <~>
|
djfrog
omgws!!!1!
Registered: 10/22/00
Posts: 3,710
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: grib]
#1449508 - 04/11/03 11:37 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Maybe he doesn't have any.
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: grib]
#1449578 - 04/11/03 12:00 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Who knows, Ask the regime. If anyone thinks they do know they are fooling themselves...i'm glad he didn't.
-------------------- America....FUCK YEAH!!! Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
zeronio
Stranger
Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: grib]
#1449629 - 04/11/03 12:10 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Because (if they had them) it wouldn't make much difference. Such weapons are not usefull in this kind of war.
|
Blastrid
e l e m e n t al i t y
Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 3,323
Loc: The Desert
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: zeronio]
#1449715 - 04/11/03 12:35 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Such weapons are not usefull in this kind of war.
Why do you think so? I agree he had nothing to lose. he knew Iraq was going to be bombed the shit out of, and history says his regime has done it before on his own people, so why not use it on those bastardly Americans coming to hurt them? I expected this war to be a filthy backstabbing war, and with suicide attacks it kind of has been. but thankfully without chem or nuclear weapons it hasn't been the worst it could be.
Just like to hear your opinion, what 'kind of war' do you see it as?
-------------------- Blas'?trid (bl?s tr?d) n. 3rd generation derivitave of a combination of 'bastard' and 'blasted'. Used as both an insult or an expletive. ex. Blastrid! Stereopattern <--My music.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: grib]
#1449723 - 04/11/03 12:38 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Hasn't got any. And hasn't any method of delivering them if he did.
Looks like Scott Ritter was right all along when he said Iraq had no WMD.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: Xlea321]
#1449740 - 04/11/03 12:42 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
Hasn't got any. And hasn't any method of delivering them if he did.
How about SCUD missiles?
http://news.focus.msn.de/G/GE/ge.htm?bild_tmp=21&snr=1966&streamsnr=7&newssnr=118790
pinky
--------------------
|
diggitydankman
No longer aCannabisConnoisseur
Registered: 12/10/02
Posts: 479
Loc: Michgan
Last seen: 20 years, 11 months
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: grib]
#1449762 - 04/11/03 12:46 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
At the end of "Desert Storm" he had plans to release massive amounts of SCUDS towards Israel. I would assume that he is still planning the same, unless of course he is dead.
-------------------- "It's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate my course of action I should play GOD." Maynard James Keenan, Tool
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: Phred]
#1449770 - 04/11/03 12:50 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
How about SCUD missiles?
How about them?
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: grib]
#1450055 - 04/11/03 02:15 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
maybe he did. maybe when the boys come home, they'll start getting sick. who knows.
i think he didn't use them because if he did, world opinion, the only thing he had going for him, would instantly sway against him.
|
Azmodeus
Seeker
Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: ]
#1450259 - 04/11/03 03:23 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Face it boys, when the "evidence" of WMD came out, and proved lacking, the whole motive of the war changed to how evil saddam is, and tehn later agin to iraqi "liberation".....he never did have them, and im sure he doesn't give a fuck about world opinion sinse it didn't keep teh US away now did it?
-------------------- "Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source. Lest we forget. "
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: Xlea321]
#1450420 - 04/11/03 04:39 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Alex123 asks:
How about them?
Click on the link I provided. It's from a German website.
SCUDS are capable of delivering chem and bio warheads. And Iraq swore to Allah repeatedly that they had destroyed all their SCUDS, that they had none, and had no intention of acquiring more. SCUDS, of course, were on the list of weaponry for which Iraq had to provide credible proof of destruction.
The photo I linked shows SCUDS found in Baghdad -- SCUDS that weren't destroyed, SCUDS that were missed by both groups of inspectors. If the inspectors were capable of being deceived by Hussein re SCUDS, why do you believe so fervently that they were incapable of being deceived re chem and bio weaponry?
pinky
--------------------
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 29 days
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: Phred]
#1450438 - 04/11/03 04:54 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Not that I'm doubting you, but I con't read german...
-------------------- "Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
Edited by Rono (04/11/03 04:55 PM)
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: Phred]
#1451549 - 04/12/03 12:08 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
SCUDS that weren't destroyed, SCUDS that were missed by both groups of inspectors.
More importantly, were they SCUDS that WORKED?
And if they did work why do you think they wern't FIRED?
Try and think these things through pink rather than just blundering with Bush propaganda.
-------------------- Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
PsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess
Registered: 02/12/99
Posts: 1,617
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: Xlea321]
#1451735 - 04/12/03 02:45 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Media backpeddling analysis http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,921649,00.html Claim Thursday, March 20, 10.15am An Iraqi Scud missile fired at US troops on the Kuwaiti border was intercepted by Patriot missiles, the US military says. Reports of Scud attacks widespread. Confession Sunday, March 23, 4.30am US general Stanley McChrystal says: "So far there have been no Scuds launched... We have found no caches of weapons of mass destruction to date." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/23/iraq/main545485.shtml http://www.rense.com/general36/gas.htm Oh yeah, and they werent scuds.. and again, the UN knew about them. They were al samoud and it was widely disputed as to if they were covered in the disarmament due to their short range. In anycase, they were in the process of being destroyed.. The Iraqis complied with the order, and U.N. chief inspector Hans Blix reported that about 70 of the missiles had been destroyed, leaving approximately 30 in the Iraqi arsenal. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/20/iraq/main544972.shtml Also: "Iraq launched at least four missiles against U.S. troops in Kuwait Thursday morning. The first volley toward the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force's headquarters (Camp Commando, south of the Iraqi border) were what first reported to be Scuds, but now are thought to have been two Chinese-made CSSC-3 Seersucker cruise missiles. Later on that day, either al-Samoud or Ababil-100 short-range, solid fuel ballistic missiles were also launched at U.S. forces. American missile defense batteries in the area responded with at least five Patriot interceptors, one of which misfired and self-destructed. Early reports claim that possibly two Iraq missiles were intercepted, but it is unclear whether that was the work of the new Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC)-3 interceptor, which uses a hit-to-kill warhead, or by an older version of the Patriot interceptor, which uses a blast-fragmentation warhead. Also, while it is certainly hoped that the Patriot is defending our forces as intended, the much-inflated reports of its performance during the first Gulf War must be kept in mind when keeping up with news reports. For more information on how the latest version of the Patriot differs from what was used fairly ineffectively in 1991, please see CDI's fact sheet at http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/patriot.cfm. " "Iraq continues to destroy Al Samoud 2 missiles Iraq began destroying six more of its illegal Al Samoud 2 missiles on Monday, according to Agence France-Presse (March 10, 2003). Once it has completed destroying this latest set, 52 of Iraq's estimated 100 Al Samoud 2 missiles will have been eliminated. Also, since the process began on March 1, 16 warheads, five engines, one launcher, and parts of the missiles' guidance and control system have also been destroyed under the watchful eyes of the United Nations. Slate explains (Feb. 28, 2003) the likely process through which the missiles are being destroyed: "[E]xplosive demolition experts are usually called in. Components that can be safely removed, such as gyroscopes, are first stripped away. Then the specialists give the design a thorough once-over, seeking out critical pressure points that will hopefully buckle when blasted. Shaped cutting charges are placed on these points and remotely detonated from a safe distance. The remains are then crushed with a steamroller, to guarantee that they cannot be salvaged from a scrap heap. It's particularly important to pur?e the most hard-to-find engine parts, such as thrust regulators and gas generators. Smaller components may also be melted in furnaces, just to make sure."
--------------------
Edited by PsiloKitten (04/12/03 03:02 AM)
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: Xlea321]
#1451921 - 04/12/03 07:55 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
More importantly, were they SCUDS that WORKED?
As always, you ignore the point and try to derail it with irrelevancies.
The point is that the terms of the conditional surrender required Iraq to destroy all their SCUDS, and to provide credible proof of their destruction. Clearly this wasn't done. In other words, Iraq retained weaponry prohibited by the agreement.
I repeat -- since Iraq had no difficulty deceiving the inspectors on the issue of the destruction of SCUDS, why do you believe so fervently that they were incapable of deceiving the inspectors regarding the destruction of chem and bio weaponry?
And if they did work why do you think they wern't FIRED?
Perhaps the missile crew assigned to that particular pair of SCUDS deserted? Perhaps they were killed?
Whatever the explanation, it is beside the point. The point is that those SCUDS should have been destroyed twelve years ago.
Try and think these things through pink rather than just blundering with Bush propaganda.
What "Bush propaganda" are you talking about? That photo was taken by German journalists and published on a German website (run by the same German publication who had a photographer killed earlier in the week: Focus). Given the intense and unequivocal opposition that Germany expressed to the war, why are you claiming that a German news organization would be a part of any "Bush propaganda"?
Try to think things through, Alex.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: PsiloKitten]
#1451923 - 04/12/03 07:58 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
PsiloKitten, did you bother to click on the link I provided? The links you gave us are interesting, but completely irrelevant to the photo in the link I provided. pinky
--------------------
Edited by pinksharkmark (04/12/03 07:59 AM)
|
arabmobster
#1
Registered: 04/01/03
Posts: 317
Loc: Palestine
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: Phred]
#1451926 - 04/12/03 08:00 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
i don't think he has anychemical weapons american just made a laim excuse they want the oil
|
zeronio
Stranger
Registered: 10/16/01
Posts: 2,349
Loc: Slovenia
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: Phred]
#1451963 - 04/12/03 08:47 AM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
The WMD were never an issue. US government just abused the fear of people to justify attack. You should forget about that and be happy - Iraquis are liberated!
|
PsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess
Registered: 02/12/99
Posts: 1,617
|
Re: Why didn't Saddam... [Re: Phred]
#1452713 - 04/12/03 02:12 PM (20 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
yeah, I clicked on the link you provided in GERMAN with an image and no article. The attached article is from today and talking about Tikrit Im not surprised that Germany has a picture of some scuds.. the image caption says:
Bagdad: These Scud rockets were sought out by US soldiers
it just says, these are what they are looking for. It doesnt say that they have found them.
Im sorry if your brain cant draw the connection between seeing a picture of some scuds that it doesnt say were found and seeing some links that disprove all the other "we found scuds" theories out there..
--------------------
|
|